There are a lot of very valid opinions and suggestions on this thread. I think based on the suggestions and disagreements (specifically in the last page or so), we should have an appreciation for the position FFG was in when they developed the rules for space combat.

Especially when the rules-as-written make accelerating to top speed take so long.

Unless - of course - one uses the Punch It maneuver.

I would definitely encourage people to dig up that Order 66 podcast about starship combat and give it a listen.

We must continually remind ourselves that this system is not meant to be a tactical simulation; instead it's a framework for epic storytelling that requires participation from all at the table to make the story awesome. The framework is intentionally light so as to facilitate a better storytelling experience versus cold, hard dice.

Unless - of course - one uses the Punch It maneuver.

Yes, the maneuver that will literally take some ships out of combat just to perform. Its not that bad on a Speed 4 transport with 15-20 Strain. But almost every fighter is blowing between 50-100% of its strain to reach speed.

Also, once again the "You are just playing it wrong, its NAAAARRATIVE" line. What part of tracking speed for every ship and accelerating and decelerating by 1 each maneuver is narrative? Why is that considered "not tactical guys" while wanting maneuverable ships to be a bit harder to hit is apparently tactical?

I get really sick and tired of the "you are just playing it wrong" guys. Its one thing to say it works at your table. Its all about different perspectives. Different people will play different ways and have different goals. Its another to tell people that they are playing the game wrong.

Unless - of course - one uses the Punch It maneuver.

Yes, the maneuver that will literally take some ships out of combat just to perform. Its not that bad on a Speed 4 transport with 15-20 Strain. But almost every fighter is blowing between 50-100% of its strain to reach speed.

Also, once again the "You are just playing it wrong, its NAAAARRATIVE" line. What part of tracking speed for every ship and accelerating and decelerating by 1 each maneuver is narrative? Why is that considered "not tactical guys" while wanting maneuverable ships to be a bit harder to hit is apparently tactical?

I get really sick and tired of the "you are just playing it wrong" guys. Its one thing to say it works at your table. Its all about different perspectives. Different people will play different ways and have different goals. Its another to tell people that they are playing the game wrong.

Gear down big shifter, I'll never tell you how to play the game. However, if you expect to taste an orange when you bite into an apple, you will be disappointed. I'm just clarifying what I see as confusion amongst newcomers who might not yet get the whole style of this game. I have the benefit of experience and my only goal is to educate - my apologies if you are offended.

Gear down big shifter, I'll never tell you how to play the game. However, if you expect to taste an orange when you bite into an apple, you will be disappointed. I'm just clarifying what I see as confusion amongst newcomers who might not yet get the whole style of this game. I have the benefit of experience and my only goal is to educate - my apologies if you are offended.

But see, you continue to do it. Your comment on newcomers and the need to educate due to your benefit of experience. You are making assumptions about those that disagree with you. I've been playing the game since the EotE Beginner's box. I'm not a newcomer. I know the system. I know how it works. Your opinion means no more than my own, and dismissing disagreements over how the rules work not with any criticism of the actual arguments made, but instead a blanket "but its narrative" statement is just... well dismissive.

And lets be honest here. FFG Star Wars is a narrative bent game, but it isn't as completely narrative as the "its narrative" camp likes to believe. It has tons of concrete maneuvers and actions and active talents that do things in very specific ways. And very concrete ways to use advantage in both ground and space combat. Yes you can suggest other uses, but those probably shouldn't overstep the things that do have defined ways to do, and they have a good bit.

To be honest, its not as different than most other games run by a competent GM. You tell me what you want to accomplish, I tell you what to roll. The only difference is that in FFG Star Wars, sometimes you have a basic overview, then roll, then ask to do that extra stuff with advantage rather than asking before being told what to roll..

Gear down big shifter, I'll never tell you how to play the game. However, if you expect to taste an orange when you bite into an apple, you will be disappointed. I'm just clarifying what I see as confusion amongst newcomers who might not yet get the whole style of this game. I have the benefit of experience and my only goal is to educate - my apologies if you are offended.

But see, you continue to do it.

Again, my apologies; my audience is everyone reading this thread, I had no intention to offend any single individual. Anything with dice and rules is inherently not 100% narrative, clearly. My opinion originates from listening to the developers describe their intent, and I don't see any problem relaying that if I feel it would be helpful. My intent is never to offend or belittle - and while I have been running the game for over a year, I agree this doesn't make me any sort of expert and I claim no such thing. What I preach is that we should go forth and make cool stories. Do it however you like. But declaring something doesn't work, per the thread title - well, that's just not so. It works fine and we're having fun with it just fine at my table - a positive example for the audience.

I still feel that the A wing is a poor example of a dogfighter. It is explicitly mentioned in the EU that it relies on it's speed, not maneuverabiity. We have already shown that this is best reflected mechanically by using the A wing's speed to get in and out of range before the enemy can react, rather than using Gain the Advantage to dogfight. The Xwing is the paramount dogfighter, aand should be your example.

Even with giving the A-Wing a bonus to evasive maneuvers, its still not as good of a dogfighter as an X-Wing. The fact that most weapons can remove an A-Wing with one decent shot, and offense is slightly favored by the system (as said, buying up offense is generally just buying up ranks of skill, buying up defense means buying talents), means that all a small boost in defense does is give you a slight edge in not getting shot.

I'd still bet money on the A-Wing getting hit once before the X-Wing gets hit twice.

(Also, because of the higher strain and the astromech, the X-Wing would still be better at hit and run, as it could blow strain into doing a second maneuver to close twice, then run twice, having the astromech heal up strain 1 each turn, would only be using 1 strain a turn net out of 10 strain. Where as the A-Wing has only 6 max strain).

That's the point, the A wing ISNT a dogfighter. it's a "Suddenly 6 Awings appear and you just lost all your hull to lasers- what do you do before they run away? Wait, let me roll the criticals on you first..." Especially if they can catch a formation spread out, where the Awing formation can pick off the edges.

All the EU Awing squadrons I can think of are named for reach weapons- halberds, polarms, ect. They arnt supposed to get up close and personal. They keep their distance and atack openings as they present themselves.

I only have a few things to add:

1) If you want a system that is a bit crunchier and takes ships into account more, I'd consider one of the many X-wing adoptions on the forum. My group is currently doing so though we haven't yet decided if we're going to go with it.

2) On the GTA is useless thing: One of the pilot talents lets you do an action as a maneuver for 2 strain. This would make GTA quite useful as you could use it in the same round you attack. (It's Master Pilot towards the bottom of the tree)

3) We've also discussed turning shields into soak instead of defense dice but we're unsure how it would tip the balance of combat.

... Should I restate exactly what I just said.

Even with the extra boost during Evasive Maneuvers, the X-Wing STILL OWNS DOGFIGHTS. Seriously, with the rules I wrote the A-Wing would have 1 setback more on defense than an X-Wing (and if the X-Wing had angled shields and doesn't get outmaneuvered in Gain the Advantage (pretty hard with a decently skilled pilot, as it has good speed and good maneuverability) the X-Wing still matches the A-Wing in avoiding getting hit altogether (2 shield +1 setback from my "Evasive I" quality versus 1 shield and +2 setback from my "Evasive II" quality).

The A-Wing has a bit of advantage on the Gain the Advantage rolls, but not so much that he is going to beat the X-Wing twice before the X-Wing can tag him once.

The X-Wing still matches up pretty well on the avoiding getting hit front, and has better armor and better hull threshold as well. For pure dogfighting, the X-Wing still rules the roost, even with my adjustments.

The adjustments I made just make it not so much of a ROFLstomp.

And I still think that because of the strain rules + astromech + double maneuvers + the fact speed 5 and speed 6 ships move the same distances with the fly maneuver, the X-Wing still might beat out the A-Wing on hit and runs. (Also, because speed 5-6 ships share the same fly maneuver speed, its not like an A-Wing can hit and run on most Imp fighters.) (The only real advantage the A-Wing has on hit and runs is the longer sensor range).

Also, once again the "You are just playing it wrong, its NAAAARRATIVE" line. What part of tracking speed for every ship and accelerating and decelerating by 1 each maneuver is narrative? Why is that considered "not tactical guys" while wanting maneuverable ships to be a bit harder to hit is apparently tactical?

I get really sick and tired of the "you are just playing it wrong" guys. Its one thing to say it works at your table. Its all about different perspectives. Different people will play different ways and have different goals. Its another to tell people that they are playing the game wrong.

Well, you're not wrong I do think the combat leaves a lot to be desired, and is a bit of a hodgepodge. However...and this is a BIG However for me...when used as a narrative vehicle it's positively thrilling. I said this earlier: it's best (IMHO) to limit starship combat to brief narrative bursts. Chases, flight, holding off TIEs while those damned coordinates get punched in, quick repairs, etc...these rules handle that really well. That also fits with the general thrust of the ruleset. Yes, there is the odd anomaly of speed (which is entirely tactical...and oddly, completely missing from personal scale)...I just chalk it up to rules mistakes or even developer divergence on where to take it.

I don't think the rules handle dogfights that well. Too lethal, and the speed issue is just one of several glaring problems. At this point though I don't see the point of bemoaning it. Stick with what the rules do well, until FFG or some inspired fan makes something more suitable. I'm still holding out hope for a dogfighting/combat supplement.

As for A-wings being inferior to X-wings in most respects, except speed and manoeuvrability, that is as it should be, right? I mean, it's a high-powered experimental and fragile engine with a cockpit and some weapons gaffa taped on... right?

Low strain threshold makes sense. It's low hull makes sense. It's poor defence makes sense. In a one-on-one it shouldn't really be equivalent or superior to an X-wing. The tactical bit comes in not through it's mechanical superiority in all respects, but in the player's ability to play on the strengths on the A-wing. Which aren't many sure, but it's there: speed and manoeuvrability.

Also, players in A-wings should be Ace/Pilots, and most opponents will be minions or rivals - with the odd nemesis - with no or very few pilot talents. This also skews the balance in the players' favour.

I'm all for house-rules, if it's necessary, and it seems it's necessary here for some people. I still think that an open mind and a willingness to leave the comfort zone and one's own expectations to try something new on different premisses can be rewarding - originally I was quite disappointed with the abstract combat system, and in particular the space combat system, but I tried to work with it rather than against it. So perhaps I've become a true believer or something...

Except the difference between 5 and 6 speed is miniscule. Literally the A-Wing has 1 speed and 2 handling on the X-Wing. 5 and 6 speed vehicles move ranges the same, so no advantage there. Slight advantage in Gain the Advantage. The +2 handling can come in handy, meaning on average you generate +2/3 of a success and +1 1/3 of an advantage on all pilot checks, but its by no means overwhelming.

In the other direction though. +4 Hull Threshold, +4 Strain Threshold, +1 Armor, +1 Shields is significant. With only 6 HT and 2 Armor, one solid hit (2 successes from a TIE Fighter) and its gone. With 10 HT and 3 Armor, it would take at least 2 hits to be taken down by a TIE Fighter. Add in angling shields and a pretty competent pilot to keep any TIEs from GtAing and the X-Wing is also harder to hit than the A-Wing. And with the higher strain, and the astromech available to mitigate some strain use, the X-Wing has a lot more flexibility in how it can use double maneuver turns.

On top of that, butter guns, check, better missiles, check.

They honestly gave high speed maneuverable starfighters in this game almost no upsides, because the few things they usually get, like the ability to outpace other craft in combat situations (eliminated because of speed 5-6 ships sharing fly maneuver distances, and X-Wings and TIE Fighters being 5 speed) or being harder to hit (because shields are the only thing that make two different starfighters harder to hit) just don't exist.

If the A-wing were a low-cost interceptor (rather than an extremely expensive hot rod) then it would have a clearer place in the RA's forces. As it is, there's not really any good reason to devote resources to building A-wings if those same resources could have instead been used to produce more X-wings.

If the A-wing were a low-cost interceptor (rather than an extremely expensive hot rod) then it would have a clearer place in the RA's forces. As it is, there's not really any good reason to devote resources to building A-wings if those same resources could have instead been used to produce more X-wings.

It could be worse, it could be the TIE Defender, which as statted has got to be the biggest blunder in Imperial History. So you created a ship, that is a slightly more fragile and more maneuverable Y-Wing (+2 Maneuverability, -2 Hull Threshold), without the advantage of an astromech, or a second crewman, and it costs over 3.5x as much. Good job guys.

Part of me wants to restat the thing to actually be worth 300k, and part of me wants to just leave it the same and make it some hilarious buearacratic mess that somehow spiraled in cost and was built by committee with tons of input from different companies bidding for construction of parts with kickbacks everywhere that somehow turned out an abomination of pieces that operates like crap and is a huge embarrassment to the entire Imperial war machine.

I can just hear the jokes made by Ace Interceptor pilots when they get transferred over to fly "the most advanced starfighter ever made."

Hi people!

Everyone remember that either people from FFG or other info sources where not canon, so if I say that Y-Wing have speed 8, will have the same value XD

So, to everyone, feel free to change or adapt stats, because the only official and canonical information is here actually http://www.starwars.com/databank So, if do you want that TIE Defenders or A-Wing become that most awesome fighters on the galaxy, just do it! But until the moment any data away from the ones down there, are just our choice:

- A-Wing http://www.starwars.com/databank/a-wing-fighter

- Y-Wing http://www.starwars.com/databank/y-wing-starfighter

- B-Wing http://www.starwars.com/databank/b-wing-fighter

- X-Wing http://www.starwars.com/databank/x-wing-starfighter

- TIE Fighter http://www.starwars.com/databank/tie-fighter

Long time ago an awesome computer flight simulator called X-Wing told us that A-Wing was 120 MGLS, TIE Interceptor was 110, TIE Fighter was 100 MGLS, X-Wing was 80 MGLS and Y-Wing was 70 MGLS (don't remember the rest XD).

But again, that wasn't canon data, so, feel free to give the stats that fits you betters

Also D6 told us that X-Wing was Speed 4D and Handling 3D, TIE Fighter was Speed 5D Handling 2D and A-Wing was speed 6D Handling 4D. Don't remember other games stats.

One of my players also is saying that A-Wing is a bit "underpowered". Because of that we created some kind of patch to try to fix it.

Hope it helped!

PS: Yes, I LOVE starships XDD

And that's part of the problem, we love to compare the stats presented in previous material as a kind of baseline, which it isn't. The numbers from X-wing, and WEG, or any other game for that matter were made for those systems with the play and balance of said systems as priority, not others, so of course nothing going to quite match, it can't.

You can always think of the A wing as a Shielded Tie Intercepter with a Tie Bomber's armamant.

I think the issue with the Defenders stats are more that they match no depiction in existence ever. Including the version in the miniatures game expansion pack that FFG just published. It just seems weird for FFG to publish the Defender in two games practically at the same time and in one be a superfighter, and in the other the closest other ship in the game it resembles is the Y-Wing.

Personally, on the stats they have, they could change the lasers to linked 2, and the concussion missiles to limited ammo (10) and it feels just like an Xg-1 Star-wing.

The Xg-1 does feel better for that stat block, but the EU got a total ____ for the Defender. Guess they felt having people upset the stats felt off was better then dealing with a bunch of players too young to know about ELS setting thinking they pulled the Xg-1 out of thin air and going on to demand Defender stats (that they still probably wouldn't be happy with).

This thread has just blazed along since I last had the chance to post, so I apologize if I leave certain comments without responses, but let me offer a quick note of caution:

I think there may be some conflation going on between the current discussion and the title of the thread. Not every poster arguing that Speed mechanics can be a bit wonky, necessarily believes that space combat (or vehicle mechanics beyond) is unplayable. I happen to think the space combat mechanics work very well, I merely agree with some posters about quirks of the system, and am interested in ways to work around or alter those aspects.

A couple of ideas.

1. Instead of Cool and Vigilance, use Pilot and Computers in their place so a pilot's skill comes into play when it comes to starship combat.

2. Most of the fast ships have a plus handling stat. Allow it to give its bonus to Initiative checks, thus giving the faster ship better odds of gaining first strike.

My contention is that the Awing is not a dogfighter, but could use a few more mechanics to support a "boom and zoom" playstyle over other fightercraft. The Xwing is the ultimate "turn and burn" dogfighter- nothing will beat it at it's chosen role, as it should be.. Ywing is a powerful craft that plays to the strengths of tthe system. (potentilly 3 sets of PC actions in one ship) The Bwing and Tie Defender are the opposite problem- too much hardware and too little ability to use it- they could use a "droidbrain copilot"